GOD DID IT OR DID NATURALISM DO IT?

Does the hypothesis of Intelligent Design explain anything? Some argue that the idea of an uncased Causer is necessary. Others retort that to say that “God did it,” is a cop-out, which explains nothing.

Interestingly theists and non-theists do science the same way and invoke the same immutable and elegant laws of science to both explain and predict. However, when we try to account for these laws or regularities, the very foundations of science, we separate into warring camps, one side invoking “naturalism,” the other “supernaturalism” (ID).

Can naturalism explain the existence, immutability, and elegance of the “natural” laws better than ID? It would seem that neither hypothesis should be summarily dismissed.

HOW MUCH EVIDENCE OF DESIGN WOULD IT TAKE TO PROVE THAT THERE IS ACTUALLY A DESIGNER?

There will never be enough evidence for those unwilling to weigh it. However, some reluctantly acknowledge that the evidence has already arrived.

Albert Einstein admitted:

• "The harmony of natural law . . . reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."

Likewise, former atheist and astronomer, Alan Sandage, said:

• "As I said before, the world is too complicated in all of its parts to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together. . . . The more one learns of biochemistry the more unbelievable it becomes unless there is some kind of organizing principle—an architect for believers. . . ." (Norman Geisler)

We do a good job distinguishing between what happens formulaically (according to the laws of science) and what's intelligently caused - poems, writing of books, a computer program, the Mona Lisa.

When observe life and all of it's systems necessary for even the most rudimentary forms of life, we observe the unmistakable product of intelligence. The fine-tuning of the universe, DNA, the elegance of the laws of science, and the mystery of consciousness all proclaim something far beyond formulaic causation.

How much more evidence is needed?

Whose “Creation Myth” Makes the most Sense?

The late Allan Sandage, widely regarded as the father of modern astronomy and discoverer of quasars, wrote,

• I find it quite improbable that such order [as exemplified by the laws of physics] came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence – why there is something rather than nothing.

In opposition to this, naturalism posits that there is a natural explanation for these laws. However, these laws pose a formidable challenge:

1. THEY ARE IMMUTABLE: This is impossible to account for within a universe characterized by molecules-in-motion.

2. THEY ARE SUPREMELY ELEGANT: Explosions – the Big Bang - can’t account for elegance.

3. THEY ACT UNIVERSALLY AND UNIFORMLY: From where do they exert their influence? It would seem that they are transcendent. This would best explain their uniform influence.

Consequently, mathematician and scientist John C. Lennox concludes:

• The world of strict naturalism, in which clever mathematical laws all by themselves bring the universe and life into existence is pure (science) fiction…a rather desperate refuge from the alternative possibility [God].